Earth and atmospheric sciences

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares32 Views

    High-speed videos show what happens when a droplet splashes into a pool

    by

    Rain can freefall at speeds of up to 25 miles per hour. If the droplets land in a puddle or pond, they can form a crown-like splash that, with enough force, can dislodge any surface particles and launch them into the air.Now MIT scientists have taken high-speed videos of droplets splashing into a deep pool, to track how the fluid evolves, above and below the water line, frame by millisecond frame. Their work could help to predict how spashing droplets, such as from rainstorms and irrigation systems, may impact watery surfaces and aerosolize surface particles, such as pollen on puddles or pesticides in agricultural runoff.The team carried out experiments in which they dispensed water droplets of various sizes and from various heights into a pool of water. Using high-speed imaging, they measured how the liquid pool deformed as the impacting droplet hit the pool’s surface.Across all their experiments, they observed a common splash evolution: As a droplet hit the pool, it pushed down below the surface to form a “crater,” or cavity. At nearly the same time, a wall of liquid rose above the surface, forming a crown. Interestingly, the team observed that small, secondary droplets were ejected from the crown before the crown reached its maximum height. This entire evolution happens in a fraction of a second.

    “This cylinder-like wall of rising liquid, and how it evolves in time and space, is at the heart of everything,” Lydia Bourouiba says. GIF has been edited down to 5 frames per second.

    Image: Courtesy of the researchers; edited by MIT News

    Previous item
    Next item

    Scientists have caught snapshots of droplet splashes in the past, such as the famous “Milk Drop Coronet” — a photo of a drop of milk in mid-splash, taken by the late MIT professor Harold “Doc” Edgerton, who invented a photographic technique to capture quickly moving objects.The new work represents the first time scientists have used such high-speed images to model the entire splash dynamics of a droplet in a deep pool, combining what happens both above and below the surface. The team has used the imaging to gather new data central to build a mathematical model that predicts how a droplet’s shape will morph and merge as it hits a pool’s surface. They plan to use the model as a baseline to explore to what extent a splashing droplet might drag up and launch particles from the water pool.“Impacts of drops on liquid layers are ubiquitous,” says study author Lydia Bourouiba, a professor in the MIT departments of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Mechanical Engineering, and a core member of the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science (IMES). “Such impacts can produce myriads of secondary droplets that could act as carriers for pathogens, particles, or microbes that are on the surface of impacted pools or contaminated water bodies. This work is key in enabling prediction of droplet size distributions, and potentially also what such drops can carry with them.”Bourouiba and her mentees have published their results in the Journal of Fluid Mechanics. MIT co-authors include former graduate student Raj Dandekar PhD ’22, postdoc (Eric) Naijian Shen, and student mentee Boris Naar.Above and belowAt MIT, Bourouiba heads up the Fluid Dynamics of Disease Transmission Laboratory, part of the Fluids and Health Network, where she and her team explore the fundamental physics of fluids and droplets in a range of environmental, energy, and health contexts, including disease transmission. For their new study, the team looked to better understand how droplets impact a deep pool — a seemingly simple phenomenon that nevertheless has been tricky to precisely capture and characterize.Bourouiba notes that there have been recent breakthroughs in modeling the evolution of a splashing droplet below a pool’s surface. As a droplet hits a pool of water, it breaks through the surface and drags air down through the pool to create a short-lived crater. Until now, scientists have focused on the evolution of this underwater cavity, mainly for applications in energy harvesting. What happens above the water, and how a droplet’s crown-like shape evolves with the cavity below, remained less understood.“The descriptions and understanding of what happens below the surface, and above, have remained very much divorced,” says Bourouiba, who believes such an understanding can help to predict how droplets launch and spread chemicals, particles, and microbes into the air.Splash in 3DTo study the coupled dynamics between a droplet’s cavity and crown, the team set up an experiment to dispense water droplets into a deep pool. For the purposes of their study, the researchers considered a deep pool to be a body of water that is deep enough that a splashing droplet would remain far away from the pool’s bottom. In these terms, they found that a pool with a depth of at least 20 centimeters was sufficient for their experiments.They varied each droplet’s size, with an average diameter of about 5 millimeters. They also dispensed droplets from various heights, causing the droplets to hit the pool’s surface at different speeds, which on average was about 5 meters per second. The overall dynamics, Bourouiba says, should be similar to what occurs on the surface of a puddle or pond during an average rainstorm.“This is capturing the speed at which raindrops fall,” she says. “These wouldn’t be very small, misty drops. This would be rainstorm drops for which one needs an umbrella.”Using high-speed imaging techniques inspired by Edgerton’s pioneering photography, the team captured videos of pool-splashing droplets, at rates of up to 12,500 frames per second. They then applied in-house imaging processing methods to extract key measurements from the image sequences, such as the changing width and depth of the underwater cavity, and the evolving diameter and height of the rising crown. The researchers also captured especially tricky measurements, of the crown’s wall thickness profile and inner flow — the cylinder that rises out of the pool, just before it forms a rim and points that are characteristic of a crown.“This cylinder-like wall of rising liquid, and how it evolves in time and space, is at the heart of everything,” Bourouiba says. “It’s what connects the fluid from the pool to what will go into the rim and then be ejected into the air through smaller, secondary droplets.”The researchers worked the image data into a set of “evolution equations,” or a mathematical model that relates the various properties of an impacting droplet, such as the width of its cavity and the thickness and speed profiles of its crown wall, and how these properties change over time, given a droplet’s starting size and impact speed.“We now have a closed-form mathematical expression that people can use to see how all these quantities of a splashing droplet change over space and time,” says co-author Shen, who plans, with Bourouiba, to apply the new model to the behavior of secondary droplets and understanding how a splash end-up dispersing particles such as pathogens and pesticides. “This opens up the possibility to study all these problems of splash in 3D, with self-contained closed-formed equations, which was not possible before.”This research was supported, in part, by the Department of Agriculture-National Institute of Food and Agriculture Specialty Crop Research Initiative; the Richard and Susan Smith Family Foundation; the National Science Foundation; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; Inditex; and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Energy

      3 Questions: What the laws of physics tell us about CO2 removal

      by

      Human activities continue to pump billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, raising global temperatures and driving extreme weather events. As countries grapple with climate impacts and ways to significantly reduce carbon emissions, there have been various efforts to advance carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies that directly remove carbon dioxide from the air and sequester it for long periods of time.Unlike carbon capture and storage technologies, which are designed to remove carbon dioxide at point sources such as fossil-fuel plants, CDR aims to remove carbon dioxide molecules that are already circulating in the atmosphere.A new report by the American Physical Society and led by an MIT physicist provides an overview of the major experimental CDR approaches and determines their fundamental physical limits. The report focuses on methods that have the biggest potential for removing carbon dioxide, at the scale of gigatons per year, which is the magnitude that would be required to have a climate-stabilizing impact.The new report was commissioned by the American Physical Society’s Panel on Public Affairs, and appeared last week in the journal PRX. The report was chaired by MIT professor of physics Washington Taylor, who spoke with MIT News about CDR’s physical limitations and why it’s worth pursuing in tandem with global efforts to reduce carbon emissions.Q: What motivated you to look at carbon dioxide removal systems from a physical science perspective?A: The number one thing driving climate change is the fact that we’re taking carbon that has been stuck in the ground for 100 million years, and putting it in the atmosphere, and that’s causing warming. In the last few years there’s been a lot of interest both by the government and private entities in finding technologies to directly remove the CO2 from the air.How to manage atmospheric carbon is the critical question in dealing with our impact on Earth’s climate. So, it’s very important for us to understand whether we can affect the carbon levels not just by changing our emissions profile but also by directly taking carbon out of the atmosphere. Physics has a lot to say about this because the possibilities are very strongly constrained by thermodynamics, mass issues, and things like that.Q: What carbon dioxide removal methods did you evaluate?A: They’re all at an early stage. It’s kind of the Wild West out there in terms of the different ways in which companies are proposing to remove carbon from the atmosphere. In this report, we break down CDR processes into two classes: cyclic and once-through.Imagine we are in a boat that has a hole in the hull and is rapidly taking on water. Of course, we want to plug the hole as quickly as we can. But even once we have fixed the hole, we need to get the water out so we aren’t in danger of sinking or getting swamped. And this is particularly urgent if we haven’t completely fixed the hole so we still have a slow leak. Now, imagine we have a couple of options for how to get the water out so we don’t sink.The first is a sponge that we can use to absorb water, that we can then squeeze out and reuse. That’s a cyclic process in the sense that we have some material that we’re using over and over. There are cyclic CDR processes like chemical “direct air capture” (DAC), which acts basically like a sponge. You set up a big system with fans that blow air past some material that captures carbon dioxide. When the material is saturated, you close off the system and then use energy to essentially squeeze out the carbon and store it in a deep repository. Then you can reuse the material, in a cyclic process.The second class of approaches is what we call “once-through.” In the boat analogy, it would be as if you try to fix the leak using cartons of paper towels. You let them saturate and then throw them overboard, and you use each roll once.There are once-through CDR approaches, like enhanced rock weathering, that are designed to accelerate a natural process, by which certain rocks, when exposed to air, will absorb carbon from the atmosphere. Worldwide, this natural rock weathering is estimated to remove about 1 gigaton of carbon each year. “Enhanced rock weathering” is a CDR approach where you would dig up a lot of this rock, grind it up really small, to less than the width of a human hair, to get the process to happen much faster. The idea is, you dig up something, spread it out, and absorb CO2 in one go.The key difference between these two processes is that the cyclic process is subject to the second law of thermodynamics and there’s an energy constraint. You can set an actual limit from physics, saying any cyclic process is going to take a certain amount of energy, and that cannot be avoided. For example, we find that for cyclic direct-air-capture (DAC) plants, based on second law limits, the absolute minimum amount of energy you would need to capture a gigaton of carbon is comparable to the total yearly electric energy consumption of the state of Virginia. Systems currently under development use at least three to 10 times this much energy on a per ton basis (and capture tens of thousands, not billions, of tons). Such systems also need to move a lot of air; the air that would need to pass through a DAC system to capture a gigaton of CO2 is comparable to the amount of air that passes through all the air cooling systems on the planet.On the other hand, if you have a once-through process, you could in some respects avoid the energy constraint, but now you’ve got a materials constraint due to the central laws of chemistry. For once-through processes like enhanced rock weathering, that means that if you want to capture a gigaton of CO2, roughly speaking, you’re going to need a billion tons of rock.So, to capture gigatons of carbon through engineered methods requires tremendous amounts of physical material, air movement, and energy. On the other hand, everything we’re doing to put that CO2 in the atmosphere is extensive too, so large-scale emissions reductions face comparable challenges.Q: What does the report conclude, in terms of whether and how to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?A: Our initial prejudice was, CDR is just going to take so much energy, and there’s no way around that because of the second law of thermodynamics, regardless of the method.But as we discussed, there is this nuance about cyclic versus once-through systems. And there are two points of view that we ended up threading a needle between. One is the view that CDR is a silver bullet, and we’ll just do CDR and not worry about emissions — we’ll just suck it all out of the atmosphere. And that’s not the case. It will be really expensive, and will take a lot of energy and materials to do large-scale CDR. But there’s another view, where people say, don’t even think about CDR. Even thinking about CDR will compromise our efforts toward emissions reductions. The report comes down somewhere in the middle, saying that CDR is not a magic bullet, but also not a no-go.If we are serious about managing climate change, we will likely want substantial CDR in addition to aggressive emissions reductions. The report concludes that research and development on CDR methods should be selectively and prudently pursued despite the expected cost and energy and material requirements.At a policy level, the main message is that we need an economic and policy framework that incentivizes emissions reductions and CDR in a common framework; this would naturally allow the market to optimize climate solutions. Since in many cases it is much easier and cheaper to cut emissions than it will likely ever be to remove atmospheric carbon, clearly understanding the challenges of CDR should help motivate rapid emissions reductions.For me, I’m optimistic in the sense that scientifically we understand what it will take to reduce emissions and to use CDR to bring CO2 levels down to a slightly lower level. Now, it’s really a societal and economic problem. I think humanity has the potential to solve these problems. I hope that we can find common ground so that we can take actions as a society that will benefit both humanity and the broader ecosystems on the planet, before we end up having bigger problems than we already have.  More

    • 100 Shares143 Views

      in Environment

      Seeking climate connections among the oceans’ smallest organisms

      by

      Andrew Babbin tries to pack light for work trips. Along with the travel essentials, though, he also brings a roll each of electrical tape, duct tape, lab tape, a pack of cable ties, and some bungee cords.“It’s my MacGyver kit: You never know when you have to rig something on the fly in the field or fix a broken bag,” Babbin says.The trips Babbin takes are far out to sea, on month-long cruises, where he works to sample waters off the Pacific coast and out in the open ocean. In remote locations, repair essentials often come in handy, as when Babbin had to zip-tie a wrench to a sampling device to help it sink through an icy Antarctic lake.Babbin is an oceanographer and marine biogeochemist who studies marine microbes and the ways in which they control the cycling of nitrogen between the ocean and the atmosphere. This exchange helps maintain healthy ocean ecosystems and supports the ocean’s capacity to store carbon.By combining measurements that he takes in the ocean with experiments in his MIT lab, Babbin is working to understand the connections between microbes and ocean nitrogen, which could in turn help scientists identify ways to maintain the ocean’s health and productivity. His work has taken him to many coastal and open-ocean regions around the globe.“You really become an oceanographer and an Earth scientist to see the world,” says Babbin, who recently earned tenure as the Cecil and Ida Green Career Development Professor in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. “We embrace the diversity of places and cultures on this planet. To see just a small fraction of that is special.”A powerful cycleThe ocean has been a constant presence for Babbin since childhood. His family is from Monmouth County, New Jersey, where he and his twin sister grew up playing along the Jersey shore. When they were teenagers, their parents took the kids on family cruise vacations.“I always loved being on the water,” he says. “My favorite parts of any of those cruises were the days at sea, where you were just in the middle of some ocean basin with water all around you.”In school, Babbin gravitated to the sciences, and chemistry in particular. After high school, he attended Columbia University, where a visit to the school’s Earth and environmental engineering department catalyzed a realization.“For me, it was always this excitement about the water and about chemistry, and it was this pop of, ‘Oh wow, it doesn’t have to be one or the other,’” Babbin says.He chose to major in Earth and environmental engineering, with a concentration in water resources and climate risks. After graduating in 2008, Babbin returned to his home state, where he attended Princeton University and set a course for a PhD in geosciences, with a focus on chemical oceanography and environmental microbiology. His advisor, oceanographer Bess Ward, took Babbin on as a member of her research group and invited him on several month-long cruises to various parts of the eastern tropical Pacific.“I still remember that first trip,” Babbin recalls. “It was a whirlwind. Everyone else had been to sea a gazillion times and was loading the boat and strapping things down, and I had no idea of anything. And within a few hours, I was doing an experiment as the ship rocked back and forth!”Babbin learned to deploy sampling cannisters overboard, then haul them back up and analyze the seawater inside for signs of nitrogen — an essential nutrient for all living things on Earth.As it turns out, the plants and animals that depend on nitrogen to survive are unable to take it up from the atmosphere themselves. They require a sort of go-between, in the form of microbes that “fix” nitrogen, converting it from nitrogen gas to more digestible forms. In the ocean, this nitrogen fixation is done by highly specialized microbial species, which work to make nitrogen available to phytoplankton — microscopic plant-like organisms that are the foundation of the marine food chain. Phytoplankton are also a main route by which the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.Microorganisms may also use these biologically available forms of nitrogen for energy under certain conditions, returning nitrogen to the atmosphere. These microbes can also release a byproduct of nitrous oxide, which is a potent greenhouse gas that also can catalyze ozone loss in the stratosphere.Through his graduate work, at sea and in the lab, Babbin became fascinated with the cycling of nitrogen and the role that nitrogen-fixing microbes play in supporting the ocean’s ecosystems and the climate overall. A balance of nitrogen inputs and outputs sustains phytoplankton and maintains the ocean’s ability to soak up carbon dioxide.“Some of the really pressing questions in ocean biogeochemistry pertain to this cycling of nitrogen,” Babbin says. “Understanding the ways in which this one element cycles through the ocean, and how it is central to ecosystem health and the planet’s climate, has been really powerful.”In the lab and out to seaAfter completing his PhD in 2014, Babbin arrived at MIT as a postdoc in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.“My first feeling when I came here was, wow, this really is a nerd’s playground,” Babbin says. “I embraced being part of a culture where we seek to understand the world better, while also doing the things we really want to do.”In 2017, he accepted a faculty position in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. He set up his laboratory space, painted in his favorite brilliant orange, on the top floor of the Green Building.His group uses 3D printers to fabricate microfluidic devices in which they reproduce the conditions of the ocean environment and study microbe metabolism and its effects on marine chemistry. In the field, Babbin has led research expeditions to the Galapagos Islands and parts of the eastern Pacific, where he has collected and analyzed samples of air and water for signs of nitrogen transformations and microbial activity. His new measuring station in the Galapagos is able to infer marine emissions of nitrous oxide across a large swath of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. His group has also sailed to southern Cuba, where the researchers studied interactions of microbes in coral reefs.Most recently, Babbin traveled to Antarctica, where he set up camp next to frozen lakes and plumbed for samples of pristine ice water that he will analyze for genetic remnants of ancient microbes. Such preserved bacterial DNA could help scientists understand how microbes evolved and influenced the Earth’s climate over billions of years.“Microbes are the terraformers,” Babbin notes. “They have been, since life evolved more than 3 billion years ago. We have to think about how they shape the natural world and how they will respond to the Anthropocene as humans monkey with the planet ourselves.”Collective actionBabbin is now charting new research directions. In addition to his work at sea and in the lab, he is venturing into engineering, with a new project to design denitrifying capsules. While nitrogen is an essential nutrient for maintaining a marine ecosystem, too much nitrogen, such as from fertilizer that runs off into lakes and streams, can generate blooms of toxic algae. Babbin is looking to design eco-friendly capsules that scrub excess anthropogenic nitrogen from local waterways. He’s also beginning the process of designing a new sensor to measure low-oxygen concentrations in the ocean. As the planet warms, the oceans are losing oxygen, creating “dead zones” where fish cannot survive. While others including Babbin have tried to map these oxygen minimum zones, or OMZs, they have done so sporadically, by dropping sensors into the ocean over limited range, depth, and times. Babbin’s sensors could potentially provide a more complete map of OMZs, as they would be deployed on wide-ranging, deep-diving, and naturally propulsive vehicles: sharks.“We want to measure oxygen. Sharks need oxygen. And if you look at where the sharks don’t go, you might have a sense of where the oxygen is not,” says Babbin, who is working with marine biologists on ways to tag sharks with oxygen sensors. “A number of these large pelagic fish move up and down the water column frequently, so you can map the depth to which they dive to, and infer something about the behavior. And my suggestion is, you might also infer something about the ocean’s chemistry.”When he reflects on what stimulates new ideas and research directions, Babbin credits working with others, in his own group and across MIT.“My best thoughts come from this collective action,” Babbin says. “Particularly because we all have different upbringings and approach things from a different perspective.”He’s bringing this collaborative spirit to his new role, as a mission director for MIT’s Climate Project. Along with Jesse Kroll, who is a professor of civil and environmental engineering and of chemical engineering, Babbin co-leads one of the project’s six missions: Restoring the Atmosphere, Protecting the Land and Oceans. Babbin and Kroll are planning a number of workshops across campus that they hope will generate new connections, and spark new ideas, particularly around ways to evaluate the effectiveness of different climate mitigation strategies and better assess the impacts of climate on society.“One area we want to promote is thinking of climate science and climate interventions as two sides of the same coin,” Babbin says. “There’s so much action that’s trying to be catalyzed. But we want it to be the best action. Because we really have one shot at doing this. Time is of the essence.” More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Environment

      An abundant phytoplankton feeds a global network of marine microbes

      by

      One of the hardest-working organisms in the ocean is the tiny, emerald-tinged Prochlorococcus marinus. These single-celled “picoplankton,” which are smaller than a human red blood cell, can be found in staggering numbers throughout the ocean’s surface waters, making Prochlorococcus the most abundant photosynthesizing organism on the planet. (Collectively, Prochlorococcus fix as much carbon as all the crops on land.) Scientists continue to find new ways that the little green microbe is involved in the ocean’s cycling and storage of carbon.Now, MIT scientists have discovered a new ocean-regulating ability in the small but mighty microbes: cross-feeding of DNA building blocks. In a study appearing today in Science Advances, the team reports that Prochlorococcus shed these extra compounds into their surroundings, where they are then “cross-fed,” or taken up by other ocean organisms, either as nutrients, energy, or for regulating metabolism. Prochlorococcus’ rejects, then, are other microbes’ resources.What’s more, this cross-feeding occurs on a regular cycle: Prochlorococcus tend to shed their molecular baggage at night, when enterprising microbes quickly consume the cast-offs. For a microbe called SAR11, the most abundant bacteria in the ocean, the researchers found that the nighttime snack acts as a relaxant of sorts, forcing the bacteria to slow down their metabolism and effectively recharge for the next day.Through this cross-feeding interaction, Prochlorococcus could be helping many microbial communities to grow sustainably, simply by giving away what it doesn’t need. And they’re doing so in a way that could set the daily rhythms of microbes around the world.“The relationship between the two most abundant groups of microbes in ocean ecosystems has intrigued oceanographers for years,” says co-author and MIT Institute Professor Sallie “Penny” Chisholm, who played a role in the discovery of Prochlorococcus in 1986. “Now we have a glimpse of the finely tuned choreography that contributes to their growth and stability across vast regions of the oceans.”Given that Prochlorococcus and SAR11 suffuse the surface oceans, the team suspects that the exchange of molecules from one to the other could amount to one of the major cross-feeding relationships in the ocean, making it an important regulator of the ocean carbon cycle.“By looking at the details and diversity of cross-feeding processes, we can start to unearth important forces that are shaping the carbon cycle,” says the study’s lead author, Rogier Braakman, a research scientist in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS).Other MIT co-authors include Brandon Satinsky, Tyler O’Keefe, Shane Hogle, Jamie Becker, Robert Li, Keven Dooley, and Aldo Arellano, along with Krista Longnecker, Melissa Soule, and Elizabeth Kujawinski of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI).Spotting castawaysCross-feeding occurs throughout the microbial world, though the process has mainly been studied in close-knit communities. In the human gut, for instance, microbes are in close proximity and can easily exchange and benefit from shared resources.By comparison, Prochlorococcus are free-floating microbes that are regularly tossed and mixed through the ocean’s surface layers. While scientists assume that the plankton are involved in some amount of cross-feeding, exactly how this occurs, and who would benefit, have historically been challenging to probe; any stuff that Prochlorococcus cast away would have vanishingly low concentrations,and be exceedingly difficult to measure.But in work published in 2023, Braakman teamed up with scientists at WHOI, who pioneered ways to measure small organic compounds in seawater. In the lab, they grew various strains of Prochlorococcus under different conditions and characterized what the microbes released. They found that among the major “exudants,” or released molecules, were purines and pyridines, which are molecular building blocks of DNA. The molecules also happen to be nitrogen-rich — a fact that puzzled the team. Prochlorococcus are mainly found in ocean regions that are low in nitrogen, so it was assumed they’d want to retain any and all nitrogen-containing compounds they can. Why, then, were they instead throwing such compounds away?Global symphonyIn their new study, the researchers took a deep dive into the details of Prochlorococcus’ cross-feeding and how it influences various types of ocean microbes.They set out to study how Prochlorococcus use purine and pyridine in the first place, before expelling the compounds into their surroundings. They compared published genomes of the microbes, looking for genes that encode purine and pyridine metabolism. Tracing the genes forward through the genomes, the team found that once the compounds are produced, they are used to make DNA and replicate the microbes’ genome. Any leftover purine and pyridine is recycled and used again, though a fraction of the stuff is ultimately released into the environment. Prochlorococcus appear to make the most of the compounds, then cast off what they can’t.The team also looked to gene expression data and found that genes involved in recycling purine and pyrimidine peak several hours after the recognized peak in genome replication that occurs at dusk. The question then was: What could be benefiting from this nightly shedding?For this, the team looked at the genomes of more than 300 heterotrophic microbes — organisms that consume organic carbon rather than making it themselves through photosynthesis. They suspected that such carbon-feeders could be likely consumers of Prochlorococcus’ organic rejects. They found most of the heterotrophs contained genes that take up either purine or pyridine, or in some cases, both, suggesting microbes have evolved along different paths in terms of how they cross-feed.The group zeroed in on one purine-preferring microbe, SAR11, as it is the most abundant heterotrophic microbe in the ocean. When they then compared the genes across different strains of SAR11, they found that various types use purines for different purposes, from simply taking them up and using them intact to breaking them down for their energy, carbon, or nitrogen. What could explain the diversity in how the microbes were using Prochlorococcus’ cast-offs?It turns out the local environment plays a big role. Braakman and his collaborators performed a metagenome analysis in which they compared the collectively sequenced genomes of all microbes in over 600 seawater samples from around the world, focusing on SAR11 bacteria. Metagenome sequences were collected alongside measurements of various environmental conditions and geographic locations in which they are found. This analysis showed that the bacteria gobble up purine for its nitrogen when the nitrogen in seawater is low, and for its carbon or energy when nitrogen is in surplus — revealing the selective pressures shaping these communities in different ocean regimes.“The work here suggests that microbes in the ocean have developed relationships that advance their growth potential in ways we don’t expect,” says co-author Kujawinski.Finally, the team carried out a simple experiment in the lab, to see if they could directly observe a mechanism by which purine acts on SAR11. They grew the bacteria in cultures, exposed them to various concentrations of purine, and unexpectedly found it causes them to slow down their normal metabolic activities and even growth. However, when the researchers put these same cells under environmentally stressful conditions, they continued growing strong and healthy cells, as if the metabolic pausing by purines helped prime them for growth, thereby avoiding the effects of the stress.“When you think about the ocean, where you see this daily pulse of purines being released by Prochlorococcus, this provides a daily inhibition signal that could be causing a pause in SAR11 metabolism, so that the next day when the sun comes out, they are primed and ready,” Braakman says. “So we think Prochlorococcus is acting as a conductor in the daily symphony of ocean metabolism, and cross-feeding is creating a global synchronization among all these microbial cells.”This work was supported, in part, by the Simons Foundation and the National Science Foundation. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Energy

      New climate chemistry model finds “non-negligible” impacts of potential hydrogen fuel leakage

      by

      As the world looks for ways to stop climate change, much discussion focuses on using hydrogen instead of fossil fuels, which emit climate-warming greenhouse gases (GHGs) when they’re burned. The idea is appealing. Burning hydrogen doesn’t emit GHGs to the atmosphere, and hydrogen is well-suited for a variety of uses, notably as a replacement for natural gas in industrial processes, power generation, and home heating.But while burning hydrogen won’t emit GHGs, any hydrogen that’s leaked from pipelines or storage or fueling facilities can indirectly cause climate change by affecting other compounds that are GHGs, including tropospheric ozone and methane, with methane impacts being the dominant effect. A much-cited 2022 modeling study analyzing hydrogen’s effects on chemical compounds in the atmosphere concluded that these climate impacts could be considerable. With funding from the MIT Energy Initiative’s Future Energy Systems Center, a team of MIT researchers took a more detailed look at the specific chemistry that poses the risks of using hydrogen as a fuel if it leaks.The researchers developed a model that tracks many more chemical reactions that may be affected by hydrogen and includes interactions among chemicals. Their open-access results, published Oct. 28 in Frontiers in Energy Research, showed that while the impact of leaked hydrogen on the climate wouldn’t be as large as the 2022 study predicted — and that it would be about a third of the impact of any natural gas that escapes today — leaked hydrogen will impact the climate. Leak prevention should therefore be a top priority as the hydrogen infrastructure is built, state the researchers.Hydrogen’s impact on the “detergent” that cleans our atmosphereGlobal three-dimensional climate-chemistry models using a large number of chemical reactions have also been used to evaluate hydrogen’s potential climate impacts, but results vary from one model to another, motivating the MIT study to analyze the chemistry. Most studies of the climate effects of using hydrogen consider only the GHGs that are emitted during the production of the hydrogen fuel. Different approaches may make “blue hydrogen” or “green hydrogen,” a label that relates to the GHGs emitted. Regardless of the process used to make the hydrogen, the fuel itself can threaten the climate. For widespread use, hydrogen will need to be transported, distributed, and stored — in short, there will be many opportunities for leakage. The question is, What happens to that leaked hydrogen when it reaches the atmosphere? The 2022 study predicting large climate impacts from leaked hydrogen was based on reactions between pairs of just four chemical compounds in the atmosphere. The results showed that the hydrogen would deplete a chemical species that atmospheric chemists call the “detergent of the atmosphere,” explains Candice Chen, a PhD candidate in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS). “It goes around zapping greenhouse gases, pollutants, all sorts of bad things in the atmosphere. So it’s cleaning our air.” Best of all, that detergent — the hydroxyl radical, abbreviated as OH — removes methane, which is an extremely potent GHG in the atmosphere. OH thus plays an important role in slowing the rate at which global temperatures rise. But any hydrogen leaked to the atmosphere would reduce the amount of OH available to clean up methane, so the concentration of methane would increase.However, chemical reactions among compounds in the atmosphere are notoriously complicated. While the 2022 study used a “four-equation model,” Chen and her colleagues — Susan Solomon, the Lee and Geraldine Martin Professor of Environmental Studies and Chemistry; and Kane Stone, a research scientist in EAPS — developed a model that includes 66 chemical reactions. Analyses using their 66-equation model showed that the four-equation system didn’t capture a critical feedback involving OH — a feedback that acts to protect the methane-removal process.Here’s how that feedback works: As the hydrogen decreases the concentration of OH, the cleanup of methane slows down, so the methane concentration increases. However, that methane undergoes chemical reactions that can produce new OH radicals. “So the methane that’s being produced can make more of the OH detergent,” says Chen. “There’s a small countering effect. Indirectly, the methane helps produce the thing that’s getting rid of it.” And, says Chen, that’s a key difference between their 66-equation model and the four-equation one. “The simple model uses a constant value for the production of OH, so it misses that key OH-production feedback,” she says.To explore the importance of including that feedback effect, the MIT researchers performed the following analysis: They assumed that a single pulse of hydrogen was injected into the atmosphere and predicted the change in methane concentration over the next 100 years, first using four-equation model and then using the 66-equation model. With the four-equation system, the additional methane concentration peaked at nearly 2 parts per billion (ppb); with the 66-equation system, it peaked at just over 1 ppb.Because the four-equation analysis assumes only that the injected hydrogen destroys the OH, the methane concentration increases unchecked for the first 10 years or so. In contrast, the 66-equation analysis goes one step further: the methane concentration does increase, but as the system re-equilibrates, more OH forms and removes methane. By not accounting for that feedback, the four-equation analysis overestimates the peak increase in methane due to the hydrogen pulse by about 85 percent. Spread over time, the simple model doubles the amount of methane that forms in response to the hydrogen pulse.Chen cautions that the point of their work is not to present their result as “a solid estimate” of the impact of hydrogen. Their analysis is based on a simple “box” model that represents global average conditions and assumes that all the chemical species present are well mixed. Thus, the species can vary over time — that is, they can be formed and destroyed — but any species that are present are always perfectly mixed. As a result, a box model does not account for the impact of, say, wind on the distribution of species. “The point we’re trying to make is that you can go too simple,” says Chen. “If you’re going simpler than what we’re representing, you will get further from the right answer.” She goes on to note, “The utility of a relatively simple model like ours is that all of the knobs and levers are very clear. That means you can explore the system and see what affects a value of interest.”Leaked hydrogen versus leaked natural gas: A climate comparisonBurning natural gas produces fewer GHG emissions than does burning coal or oil; but as with hydrogen, any natural gas that’s leaked from wells, pipelines, and processing facilities can have climate impacts, negating some of the perceived benefits of using natural gas in place of other fossil fuels. After all, natural gas consists largely of methane, the highly potent GHG in the atmosphere that’s cleaned up by the OH detergent. Given its potency, even small leaks of methane can have a large climate impact.So when thinking about replacing natural gas fuel — essentially methane — with hydrogen fuel, it’s important to consider how the climate impacts of the two fuels compare if and when they’re leaked. The usual way to compare the climate impacts of two chemicals is using a measure called the global warming potential, or GWP. The GWP combines two measures: the radiative forcing of a gas — that is, its heat-trapping ability — with its lifetime in the atmosphere. Since the lifetimes of gases differ widely, to compare the climate impacts of two gases, the convention is to relate the GWP of each one to the GWP of carbon dioxide. But hydrogen and methane leakage cause increases in methane, and that methane decays according to its lifetime. Chen and her colleagues therefore realized that an unconventional procedure would work: they could compare the impacts of the two leaked gases directly. What they found was that the climate impact of hydrogen is about three times less than that of methane (on a per mass basis). So switching from natural gas to hydrogen would not only eliminate combustion emissions, but also potentially reduce the climate effects, depending on how much leaks.Key takeawaysIn summary, Chen highlights some of what she views as the key findings of the study. First on her list is the following: “We show that a really simple four-equation system is not what should be used to project out the atmospheric response to more hydrogen leakages in the future.” The researchers believe that their 66-equation model is a good compromise for the number of chemical reactions to include. It generates estimates for the GWP of methane “pretty much in line with the lower end of the numbers that most other groups are getting using much more sophisticated climate chemistry models,” says Chen. And it’s sufficiently transparent to use in exploring various options for protecting the climate. Indeed, the MIT researchers plan to use their model to examine scenarios that involve replacing other fossil fuels with hydrogen to estimate the climate benefits of making the switch in coming decades.The study also demonstrates a valuable new way to compare the greenhouse effects of two gases. As long as their effects exist on similar time scales, a direct comparison is possible — and preferable to comparing each with carbon dioxide, which is extremely long-lived in the atmosphere. In this work, the direct comparison generates a simple look at the relative climate impacts of leaked hydrogen and leaked methane — valuable information to take into account when considering switching from natural gas to hydrogen.Finally, the researchers offer practical guidance for infrastructure development and use for both hydrogen and natural gas. Their analyses determine that hydrogen fuel itself has a “non-negligible” GWP, as does natural gas, which is mostly methane. Therefore, minimizing leakage of both fuels will be necessary to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the goal set by both the European Commission and the U.S. Department of State. Their paper concludes, “If used nearly leak-free, hydrogen is an excellent option. Otherwise, hydrogen should only be a temporary step in the energy transition, or it must be used in tandem with carbon-removal steps [elsewhere] to counter its warming effects.” More

    • 188 Shares119 Views

      in Energy

      So you want to build a solar or wind farm? Here’s how to decide where.

      by

      Deciding where to build new solar or wind installations is often left up to individual developers or utilities, with limited overall coordination. But a new study shows that regional-level planning using fine-grained weather data, information about energy use, and energy system modeling can make a big difference in the design of such renewable power installations. This also leads to more efficient and economically viable operations.The findings show the benefits of coordinating the siting of solar farms, wind farms, and storage systems, taking into account local and temporal variations in wind, sunlight, and energy demand to maximize the utilization of renewable resources. This approach can reduce the need for sizable investments in storage, and thus the total system cost, while maximizing availability of clean power when it’s needed, the researchers found.The study, appearing today in the journal Cell Reports Sustainability, was co-authored by Liying Qiu and Rahman Khorramfar, postdocs in MIT’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and professors Saurabh Amin and Michael Howland.Qiu, the lead author, says that with the team’s new approach, “we can harness the resource complementarity, which means that renewable resources of different types, such as wind and solar, or different locations can compensate for each other in time and space. This potential for spatial complementarity to improve system design has not been emphasized and quantified in existing large-scale planning.”Such complementarity will become ever more important as variable renewable energy sources account for a greater proportion of power entering the grid, she says. By coordinating the peaks and valleys of production and demand more smoothly, she says, “we are actually trying to use the natural variability itself to address the variability.”Typically, in planning large-scale renewable energy installations, Qiu says, “some work on a country level, for example saying that 30 percent of energy should be wind and 20 percent solar. That’s very general.” For this study, the team looked at both weather data and energy system planning modeling on a scale of less than 10-kilometer (about 6-mile) resolution. “It’s a way of determining where should we, exactly, build each renewable energy plant, rather than just saying this city should have this many wind or solar farms,” she explains.To compile their data and enable high-resolution planning, the researchers relied on a variety of sources that had not previously been integrated. They used high-resolution meteorological data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is publicly available at 2-kilometer resolution but rarely used in a planning model at such a fine scale. These data were combined with an energy system model they developed to optimize siting at a sub-10-kilometer resolution. To get a sense of how the fine-scale data and model made a difference in different regions, they focused on three U.S. regions — New England, Texas, and California — analyzing up to 138,271 possible siting locations simultaneously for a single region.By comparing the results of siting based on a typical method vs. their high-resolution approach, the team showed that “resource complementarity really helps us reduce the system cost by aligning renewable power generation with demand,” which should translate directly to real-world decision-making, Qiu says. “If an individual developer wants to build a wind or solar farm and just goes to where there is the most wind or solar resource on average, it may not necessarily guarantee the best fit into a decarbonized energy system.”That’s because of the complex interactions between production and demand for electricity, as both vary hour by hour, and month by month as seasons change. “What we are trying to do is minimize the difference between the energy supply and demand rather than simply supplying as much renewable energy as possible,” Qiu says. “Sometimes your generation cannot be utilized by the system, while at other times, you don’t have enough to match the demand.”In New England, for example, the new analysis shows there should be more wind farms in locations where there is a strong wind resource during the night, when solar energy is unavailable. Some locations tend to be windier at night, while others tend to have more wind during the day.These insights were revealed through the integration of high-resolution weather data and energy system optimization used by the researchers. When planning with lower resolution weather data, which was generated at a 30-kilometer resolution globally and is more commonly used in energy system planning, there was much less complementarity among renewable power plants. Consequently, the total system cost was much higher. The complementarity between wind and solar farms was enhanced by the high-resolution modeling due to improved representation of renewable resource variability.The researchers say their framework is very flexible and can be easily adapted to any region to account for the local geophysical and other conditions. In Texas, for example, peak winds in the west occur in the morning, while along the south coast they occur in the afternoon, so the two naturally complement each other.Khorramfar says that this work “highlights the importance of data-driven decision making in energy planning.” The work shows that using such high-resolution data coupled with carefully formulated energy planning model “can drive the system cost down, and ultimately offer more cost-effective pathways for energy transition.”One thing that was surprising about the findings, says Amin, who is a principal investigator in the MIT Laboratory of Information and Data Systems, is how significant the gains were from analyzing relatively short-term variations in inputs and outputs that take place in a 24-hour period. “The kind of cost-saving potential by trying to harness complementarity within a day was not something that one would have expected before this study,” he says.In addition, Amin says, it was also surprising how much this kind of modeling could reduce the need for storage as part of these energy systems. “This study shows that there is actually a hidden cost-saving potential in exploiting local patterns in weather, that can result in a monetary reduction in storage cost.”The system-level analysis and planning suggested by this study, Howland says, “changes how we think about where we site renewable power plants and how we design those renewable plants, so that they maximally serve the energy grid. It has to go beyond just driving down the cost of energy of individual wind or solar farms. And these new insights can only be realized if we continue collaborating across traditional research boundaries, by integrating expertise in fluid dynamics, atmospheric science, and energy engineering.”The research was supported by the MIT Climate and Sustainability Consortium and MIT Climate Grand Challenges. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Environment

      New AI tool generates realistic satellite images of future flooding

      by

      Visualizing the potential impacts of a hurricane on people’s homes before it hits can help residents prepare and decide whether to evacuate.MIT scientists have developed a method that generates satellite imagery from the future to depict how a region would look after a potential flooding event. The method combines a generative artificial intelligence model with a physics-based flood model to create realistic, birds-eye-view images of a region, showing where flooding is likely to occur given the strength of an oncoming storm.As a test case, the team applied the method to Houston and generated satellite images depicting what certain locations around the city would look like after a storm comparable to Hurricane Harvey, which hit the region in 2017. The team compared these generated images with actual satellite images taken of the same regions after Harvey hit. They also compared AI-generated images that did not include a physics-based flood model.The team’s physics-reinforced method generated satellite images of future flooding that were more realistic and accurate. The AI-only method, in contrast, generated images of flooding in places where flooding is not physically possible.The team’s method is a proof-of-concept, meant to demonstrate a case in which generative AI models can generate realistic, trustworthy content when paired with a physics-based model. In order to apply the method to other regions to depict flooding from future storms, it will need to be trained on many more satellite images to learn how flooding would look in other regions.“The idea is: One day, we could use this before a hurricane, where it provides an additional visualization layer for the public,” says Björn Lütjens, a postdoc in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, who led the research while he was a doctoral student in MIT’s Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AeroAstro). “One of the biggest challenges is encouraging people to evacuate when they are at risk. Maybe this could be another visualization to help increase that readiness.”To illustrate the potential of the new method, which they have dubbed the “Earth Intelligence Engine,” the team has made it available as an online resource for others to try.The researchers report their results today in the journal IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing. The study’s MIT co-authors include Brandon Leshchinskiy; Aruna Sankaranarayanan; and Dava Newman, professor of AeroAstro and director of the MIT Media Lab; along with collaborators from multiple institutions.Generative adversarial imagesThe new study is an extension of the team’s efforts to apply generative AI tools to visualize future climate scenarios.“Providing a hyper-local perspective of climate seems to be the most effective way to communicate our scientific results,” says Newman, the study’s senior author. “People relate to their own zip code, their local environment where their family and friends live. Providing local climate simulations becomes intuitive, personal, and relatable.”For this study, the authors use a conditional generative adversarial network, or GAN, a type of machine learning method that can generate realistic images using two competing, or “adversarial,” neural networks. The first “generator” network is trained on pairs of real data, such as satellite images before and after a hurricane. The second “discriminator” network is then trained to distinguish between the real satellite imagery and the one synthesized by the first network.Each network automatically improves its performance based on feedback from the other network. The idea, then, is that such an adversarial push and pull should ultimately produce synthetic images that are indistinguishable from the real thing. Nevertheless, GANs can still produce “hallucinations,” or factually incorrect features in an otherwise realistic image that shouldn’t be there.“Hallucinations can mislead viewers,” says Lütjens, who began to wonder whether such hallucinations could be avoided, such that generative AI tools can be trusted to help inform people, particularly in risk-sensitive scenarios. “We were thinking: How can we use these generative AI models in a climate-impact setting, where having trusted data sources is so important?”Flood hallucinationsIn their new work, the researchers considered a risk-sensitive scenario in which generative AI is tasked with creating satellite images of future flooding that could be trustworthy enough to inform decisions of how to prepare and potentially evacuate people out of harm’s way.Typically, policymakers can get an idea of where flooding might occur based on visualizations in the form of color-coded maps. These maps are the final product of a pipeline of physical models that usually begins with a hurricane track model, which then feeds into a wind model that simulates the pattern and strength of winds over a local region. This is combined with a flood or storm surge model that forecasts how wind might push any nearby body of water onto land. A hydraulic model then maps out where flooding will occur based on the local flood infrastructure and generates a visual, color-coded map of flood elevations over a particular region.“The question is: Can visualizations of satellite imagery add another level to this, that is a bit more tangible and emotionally engaging than a color-coded map of reds, yellows, and blues, while still being trustworthy?” Lütjens says.The team first tested how generative AI alone would produce satellite images of future flooding. They trained a GAN on actual satellite images taken by satellites as they passed over Houston before and after Hurricane Harvey. When they tasked the generator to produce new flood images of the same regions, they found that the images resembled typical satellite imagery, but a closer look revealed hallucinations in some images, in the form of floods where flooding should not be possible (for instance, in locations at higher elevation).To reduce hallucinations and increase the trustworthiness of the AI-generated images, the team paired the GAN with a physics-based flood model that incorporates real, physical parameters and phenomena, such as an approaching hurricane’s trajectory, storm surge, and flood patterns. With this physics-reinforced method, the team generated satellite images around Houston that depict the same flood extent, pixel by pixel, as forecasted by the flood model.“We show a tangible way to combine machine learning with physics for a use case that’s risk-sensitive, which requires us to analyze the complexity of Earth’s systems and project future actions and possible scenarios to keep people out of harm’s way,” Newman says. “We can’t wait to get our generative AI tools into the hands of decision-makers at the local community level, which could make a significant difference and perhaps save lives.”The research was supported, in part, by the MIT Portugal Program, the DAF-MIT Artificial Intelligence Accelerator, NASA, and Google Cloud. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Environment

      Scientists find a human “fingerprint” in the upper troposphere’s increasing ozone

      by

      Ozone can be an agent of good or harm, depending on where you find it in the atmosphere. Way up in the stratosphere, the colorless gas shields the Earth from the sun’s harsh ultraviolet rays. But closer to the ground, ozone is a harmful air pollutant that can trigger chronic health problems including chest pain, difficulty breathing, and impaired lung function.And somewhere in between, in the upper troposphere — the layer of the atmosphere just below the stratosphere, where most aircraft cruise — ozone contributes to warming the planet as a potent greenhouse gas.There are signs that ozone is continuing to rise in the upper troposphere despite efforts to reduce its sources at the surface in many nations. Now, MIT scientists confirm that much of ozone’s increase in the upper troposphere is likely due to humans.In a paper appearing today in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, the team reports that they detected a clear signal of human influence on upper tropospheric ozone trends in a 17-year satellite record starting in 2005.“We confirm that there’s a clear and increasing trend in upper tropospheric ozone in the northern midlatitudes due to human beings rather than climate noise,” says study lead author Xinyuan Yu, a graduate student in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS).“Now we can do more detective work and try to understand what specific human activities are leading to this ozone trend,” adds co-author Arlene Fiore, the Peter H. Stone and Paola Malanotte Stone Professor in Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.The study’s MIT authors include Sebastian Eastham and Qindan Zhu, along with Benjamin Santer at the University of California at Los Angeles, Gustavo Correa of Columbia University, Jean-François Lamarque at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and Jerald Zimeke at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.Ozone’s tangled webUnderstanding ozone’s causes and influences is a challenging exercise. Ozone is not emitted directly, but instead is a product of “precursors” — starting ingredients, such as nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), that react in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. These precursors are generated from vehicle exhaust, power plants, chemical solvents, industrial processes, aircraft emissions, and other human-induced activities.Whether and how long ozone lingers in the atmosphere depends on a tangle of variables, including the type and extent of human activities in a given area, as well as natural climate variability. For instance, a strong El Niño year could nudge the atmosphere’s circulation in a way that affects ozone’s concentrations, regardless of how much ozone humans are contributing to the atmosphere that year.Disentangling the human- versus climate-driven causes of ozone trend, particularly in the upper troposphere, is especially tricky. Complicating matters is the fact that in the lower troposphere — the lowest layer of the atmosphere, closest to ground level — ozone has stopped rising, and has even fallen in some regions at northern midlatitudes in the last few decades. This decrease in lower tropospheric ozone is mainly a result of efforts in North America and Europe to reduce industrial sources of air pollution.“Near the surface, ozone has been observed to decrease in some regions, and its variations are more closely linked to human emissions,” Yu notes. “In the upper troposphere, the ozone trends are less well-monitored but seem to decouple with those near the surface, and ozone is more easily influenced by climate variability. So, we don’t know whether and how much of that increase in observed ozone in the upper troposphere is attributed to humans.”A human signal amid climate noiseYu and Fiore wondered whether a human “fingerprint” in ozone levels, caused directly by human activities, could be strong enough to be detectable in satellite observations in the upper troposphere. To see such a signal, the researchers would first have to know what to look for.For this, they looked to simulations of the Earth’s climate and atmospheric chemistry. Following approaches developed in climate science, they reasoned that if they could simulate a number of possible climate variations in recent decades, all with identical human-derived sources of ozone precursor emissions, but each starting with a slightly different climate condition, then any differences among these scenarios should be due to climate noise. By inference, any common signal that emerged when averaging over the simulated scenarios should be due to human-driven causes. Such a signal, then, would be a “fingerprint” revealing human-caused ozone, which the team could look for in actual satellite observations.With this strategy in mind, the team ran simulations using a state-of-the-art chemistry climate model. They ran multiple climate scenarios, each starting from the year 1950 and running through 2014.From their simulations, the team saw a clear and common signal across scenarios, which they identified as a human fingerprint. They then looked to tropospheric ozone products derived from multiple instruments aboard NASA’s Aura satellite.“Quite honestly, I thought the satellite data were just going to be too noisy,” Fiore admits. “I didn’t expect that the pattern would be robust enough.”But the satellite observations they used gave them a good enough shot. The team looked through the upper tropospheric ozone data derived from the satellite products, from the years 2005 to 2021, and found that, indeed, they could see the signal of human-caused ozone that their simulations predicted. The signal is especially pronounced over Asia, where industrial activity has risen significantly in recent decades and where abundant sunlight and frequent weather events loft pollution, including ozone and its precursors, to the upper troposphere.Yu and Fiore are now looking to identify the specific human activities that are leading to ozone’s increase in the upper troposphere.“Where is this increasing trend coming from? Is it the near-surface emissions from combusting fossil fuels in vehicle engines and power plants? Is it the aircraft that are flying in the upper troposphere? Is it the influence of wildland fires? Or some combination of all of the above?” Fiore says. “Being able to separate human-caused impacts from natural climate variations can help to inform strategies to address climate change and air pollution.”This research was funded, in part, by NASA. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Environment

      Researchers return to Arctic to test integrated sensor nodes

      by

      Shimmering ice extends in all directions as far as the eye can see. Air temperatures plunge to minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit and colder with wind chills. Ocean currents drag large swaths of ice floating at sea. Polar bears, narwhals, and other iconic Arctic species roam wild.For a week this past spring, MIT Lincoln Laboratory researchers Ben Evans and Dave Whelihan called this place — drifting some 200 nautical miles offshore from Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, on the frozen Beaufort Sea in the Arctic Circle — home. Two ice runways for small aircraft provided their only way in and out of this remote wilderness; heated tents provided their only shelter from the bitter cold.

      Play video

      Video: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

      Here, in the northernmost region on Earth, Evans and Whelihan joined other groups conducting fieldwork in the Arctic as part of Operation Ice Camp (OIC) 2024, an operational exercise run by the U.S. Navy’s Arctic Submarine Laboratory (ASL). Riding on snowmobiles and helicopters, the duo deployed a small set of integrated sensor nodes that measure everything from atmospheric conditions to ice properties to the structure of water deep below the surface.Ultimately, they envision deploying an unattended network of these low-cost sensor nodes across the Arctic to increase scientific understanding of the trending loss in sea ice extent and thickness. Warming much faster than the rest of the world, the Arctic is a ground zero for climate change, with cascading impacts across the planet that include rising sea levels and extreme weather. Openings in the sea ice cover, or leads, are concerning not only for climate change but also for global geopolitical competition over transit routes and natural resources. A synoptic view of the physical processes happening above, at, and below sea ice is key to determining why the ice is diminishing. In turn, this knowledge can help predict when and where fractures will occur, to inform planning and decision-making.Winter “camp”Every two years, OIC, previously called Ice Exercise (ICEX), provides a way for the international community to access the Arctic for operational readiness exercises and scientific research, with the focus switching back and forth; this year’s focus was scientific research. Coordination, planning, and execution of the month-long operation is led by ASL, a division of the U.S. Navy’s Undersea Warfighting Development Center responsible for ensuring the submarine force can effectively operate in the Arctic Ocean.Making this inhospitable and unforgiving environment safe for participants takes considerable effort. The critical first step is determining where to set up camp. In the weeks before the first participants arrived for OIC 2024, ASL — with assistance from the U.S. National Ice Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Institute, and UIC Science — flew over large sheets of floating ice (ice floes) identified via satellite imagery, landed on some they thought might be viable sites, and drilled through the ice to check its thickness. The ice floe must not only be large enough to accommodate construction of a camp and two runways but also feature both multiyear ice and first-year ice. Multiyear ice is thick and strong but rough, making it ideal for camp setup, while the smooth but thinner first-year ice is better suited for building runways. Once the appropriate ice floe was selected, ASL began to haul in equipment and food, build infrastructure like lodging and a command center, and fly in a small group before fully operationalizing the site. They also identified locations near the camp for two Navy submarines to surface through the ice.The more than 200 participants represented U.S. and allied forces and scientists from research organizations and universities. Distinguished visitors from government offices also attended OIC to see the unique Arctic environment and unfolding challenges firsthand.“Our ASL hosts do incredible work to build this camp from scratch and keep us alive,” Evans says.Evans and Whelihan, part of the laboratory’s Advanced Undersea Systems and Technology Group, first trekked to the Arctic in March 2022 for ICEX 2022. (The laboratory in general has been participating since 2016 in these events, the first iteration of which occurred in 1946.) There, they deployed a suite of commercial off-the-shelf sensors for detecting acoustic (sound) and seismic (vibration) events created by ice fractures or collisions, and for measuring salinity, temperature, and pressure in the water below the ice. They also deployed a prototype fiber-based temperature sensor array developed by the laboratory and research partners for precisely measuring temperature across the entire water column at one location, and a University of New Hampshire (UNH)−supplied echosounder to investigate the different layers present in the water column. In this maiden voyage, their goals were to assess how these sensors fared in the harsh Arctic conditions and to collect a dataset from which characteristic signatures of ice-fracturing events could begin to be identified. These events would be correlated with weather and water conditions to eventually offer a predictive capability.“We saw real phenomenology in our data,” Whelihan says. “But, we’re not ice experts. What we’re good at here at the laboratory is making and deploying sensors. That’s our place in the world of climate science: to be a data provider. In fact, we hope to open source all of our data this year so that ice scientists can access and analyze them and then we can make enhanced sensors and collect more data.”Interim iceIn the two years since that expedition, they and their colleagues have been modifying their sensor designs and deployment strategies. As Evans and Whelihan learned at ICEX 2022, to be resilient in the Arctic, a sensor must not only be kept warm and dry during deployment but also be deployed in a way to prevent breaking. Moreover, sufficient power and data links are needed to collect and access sensor data.“We can make cold-weather electronics, no problem,” Whelihan says. “The two drivers are operating the sensors in an energy-starved environment — the colder it is, the worse batteries perform — and keeping them from getting destroyed when ice floes crash together as leads in the ice open up.”Their work in the interim to OIC 2024 involved integrating the individual sensors into hardened sensor nodes and practicing deploying these nodes in easier-to-access locations. To facilitate incorporating additional sensors into a node, Whelihan spearheaded the development of an open-source, easily extensible hardware and software architecture.In March 2023, the Lincoln Laboratory team deployed three sensor nodes for a week on Huron Bay off Lake Superior through Michigan Tech’s Great Lakes Research Center (GLRC). Engineers from GLRC helped the team safely set up an operations base on the ice. They demonstrated that the sensor integration worked, and the sensor nodes proved capable of surviving for at least a week in relatively harsh conditions. The researchers recorded seismic activity on all three nodes, corresponding to some ice breaking further up the bay.“Proving our sensor node in an Arctic surrogate environment provided a stepping stone for testing in the real Arctic,” Evans says.Evans then received an invitation from Ignatius Rigor, the coordinator of the International Arctic Buoy Program (IABP), to join him on an upcoming trip to Utqiaġvik (formerly Barrow), Alaska, and deploy one of their seismic sensor nodes on the ice there (with support from UIC Science). The IABP maintains a network of Arctic buoys equipped with meteorological and oceanic sensors. Data collected by these buoys are shared with the operational and research communities to support real-time operations (e.g., forecasting sea ice conditions for coastal Alaskans) and climate research. However, these buoys are typically limited in the frequency at which they collect data, so phenomenology on shorter time scales important to climate change may be missed. Moreover, these buoys are difficult and expensive to deploy because they are designed to survive in the harshest environments for years at a time.  The laboratory-developed sensor nodes could offer an inexpensive, easier-to-deploy option for collecting more data over shorter periods of time. In April 2023, Evans placed a sensor node in Utqiaġvik on landfast sea ice, which is stationary ice anchored to the seabed just off the coast. During the sensor node’s week-long deployment, a big piece of drift ice (ice not attached to the seabed or other fixed object) broke off and crashed into the landfast ice. The event was recorded by a radar maintained by the University of Alaska Fairbanks that monitors sea ice movement in near real time to warn of any instability. Though this phenomenology is not exactly the same as that expected for Arctic sea ice, the researchers were encouraged to see seismic activity recorded by their sensor node.In December 2023, Evans and Whelihan headed to New Hampshire, where they conducted echosounder testing in UNH’s engineering test tank and on the Piscataqua River. Together with their UNH partners, they sought to determine whether a low-cost, hobby-grade echosounder could detect the same phenomenology of interest as the high-fidelity UNH echosounder, which would be far too costly to deploy in sensor nodes across the Arctic. In the test tank and on the river, the low-cost echosounder proved capable of detecting masses of water moving in the water column, but with considerably less structural detail than afforded by the higher-cost option. Seeing such dynamics is important to inferring where water comes from and understanding how it affects sea ice breakup — for example, how warm water moving in from the Pacific Ocean is coming into contact with and melting the ice. So, the laboratory researchers and UNH partners have been building a medium-fidelity, medium-cost echosounder.In January 2024, Evans and Whelihan — along with Jehan Diaz, a fellow staff member in their research group — returned to GLRC. With logistical support from their GLRC hosts, they snowmobiled across the ice on Portage Lake, where they practiced several activities to prepare for OIC 2024: augering (drilling) six-inch holes in the ice, albeit in thinner ice than that in the Arctic; placing their long, pipe-like sensor nodes through these holes; operating cold-hardened drones to interact with the nodes; and retrieving the nodes. They also practiced sensor calibration by hitting the ice with an iron bar some distance away from the nodes and correlating this distance with the resulting measured acoustic and seismic intensity.“Our time at GLRC helped us mitigate a lot of risks and prepare to deploy these complex systems in the Arctic,” Whelihan says.Arctic againTo get to OIC, Evans and Whelihan first flew to Prudhoe Bay and reacclimated to the frigid temperatures. They spent the next two days at the Deadhorse Aviation Center hangar inspecting their equipment for transit-induced damage, which included squashed cables and connectors that required rejiggering.“That’s part of the adventure story,” Evans says. “Getting stuff to Prudhoe Bay is not your standard shipping; it’s ice-road trucking.”From there, they boarded a small aircraft to the ice camp.“Even though this trip marked our second time coming here, it was still disorienting,” Evans continues. “You land in the middle of nowhere on a small aircraft after a couple-hour flight. You get out bundled in all of your Arctic gear in this remote, pristine environment.”After unloading and rechecking their equipment for any damage, calibrating their sensors, and attending safety briefings, they were ready to begin their experiments.An icy situationInside the project tent, Evans and Whelihan deployed the UNH-supplied echosounder and a suite of ground-truth sensors on an automated winch to profile water conductivity, temperature, and depth (CTD). Echosounder data needed to be validated with associated CTD data to determine the source of the water in the water column. Ocean properties change as a function of depth, and these changes are important to capture, in part because masses of water coming in from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans arrive at different depths. Though masses of warm water have always existed, climate change–related mechanisms are now bringing them into contact with the ice.  “As ice breaks up, wind can directly interact with the ocean because it’s lacking that barrier of ice cover,” Evans explains. “Kinetic energy from the wind causes mixing in the ocean; all the warm water that used to stay at depth instead gets brought up and interacts with the ice.”They also deployed four of their sensor nodes several miles outside of camp. To access this deployment site, they rode on a sled pulled via a snowmobile driven by Ann Hill, an ASL field party leader trained in Arctic survival and wildlife encounters. The temperature that day was -55 F. At such a dangerously cold temperature, frostnip and frostbite are all too common. To avoid removal of gloves or other protective clothing, the researchers enabled the nodes with WiFi capability (the nodes also have a satellite communications link to transmit low-bandwidth data). Large amounts of data are automatically downloaded over WiFi to an arm-wearable haptic (touch-based) system when a user walks up to a node.“It was so cold that the holes we were drilling in the ice to reach the water column were freezing solid,” Evans explains. “We realized it was going to be quite an ordeal to get our sensor nodes out of the ice.”So, after drilling a big hole in the ice, they deployed only one central node with all the sensor components: a commercial echosounder, an underwater microphone, a seismometer, and a weather station. They deployed the other three nodes, each with a seismometer and weather station, atop the ice.“One of our design considerations was flexibility,” Whelihan says. “Each node can integrate as few or as many sensors as desired.”The small sensor array was only collecting data for about a day when Evans and Whelihan, who were at the time on a helicopter, saw that their initial field site had become completely cut off from camp by a 150-meter-wide ice lead. They quickly returned to camp to load the tools needed to pull the nodes, which were no longer accessible by snowmobile. Two recently arrived staff members from the Ted Stevens Center for Arctic Security Studies offered to help them retrieve their nodes. The helicopter landed on the ice floe near a crack, and the pilot told them they had half an hour to complete their recovery mission. By the time they had retrieved all four sensors, the crack had increased from thumb to fist size.“When we got home, we analyzed the collected sensor data and saw a spike in seismic activity corresponding to what could be the major ice-fracturing event that necessitated our node recovery mission,” Whelihan says.  The researchers also conducted experiments with their Arctic-hardened drones to evaluate their utility for retrieving sensor node data and to develop concepts of operations for future capabilities.“The idea is to have some autonomous vehicle land next to the node, download data, and come back, like a data mule, rather than having to expend energy getting data off the system, say via high-speed satellite communications,” Whelihan says. “We also started testing whether the drone is capable on its own of finding sensors that are constantly moving and getting close enough to them. Even flying in 25-mile-per-hour winds, and at very low temperatures, the drone worked well.”Aside from carrying out their experiments, the researchers had the opportunity to interact with other participants. Their “roommates” were ice scientists from Norway and Finland. They met other ice and water scientists conducting chemistry experiments on the salt content of ice taken from different depths in the ice sheet (when ocean water freezes, salt tends to get pushed out of the ice). One of their collaborators — Nicholas Schmerr, an ice seismologist from the University of Maryland — placed high-quality geophones (for measuring vibrations in the ice) alongside their nodes deployed on the camp field site. They also met with junior enlisted submariners, who temporarily came to camp to open up spots on the submarine for distinguished visitors.“Part of what we’ve been doing over the last three years is building connections within the Arctic community,” Evans says. “Every time I start to get a handle on the phenomenology that exists out here, I learn something new. For example, I didn’t know that sometimes a layer of ice forms a little bit deeper than the primary ice sheet, and you can actually see fish swimming in between the layers.”“One day, we were out with our field party leader, who saw fog while she was looking at the horizon and said the ice was breaking up,” Whelihan adds. “I said, ‘Wait, what?’ As she explained, when an ice lead forms, fog comes out of the ocean. Sure enough, within 30 minutes, we had quarter-mile visibility, whereas beforehand it was unlimited.”Back to solid groundBefore leaving, Whelihan and Evans retrieved and packed up all the remaining sensor nodes, adopting the “leave no trace” philosophy of preserving natural places.“Only a limited number of people get access to this special environment,” Whelihan says. “We hope to grow our footprint at these events in future years, giving opportunities to other laboratory staff members to attend.”In the meantime, they will analyze the collected sensor data and refine their sensor node design. One design consideration is how to replenish the sensors’ battery power. A potential path forward is to leverage the temperature difference between water and air, and harvest energy from the water currents moving under ice floes. Wind energy may provide another viable solution. Solar power would only work for part of the year because the Arctic Circle undergoes periods of complete darkness.The team is also seeking external sponsorship to continue their work engineering sensing systems that advance the scientific community’s understanding of changes to Arctic ice; this work is currently funded through Lincoln Laboratory’s internally administered R&D portfolio on climate change. And, in learning more about this changing environment and its critical importance to strategic interests, they are considering other sensing problems that they could tackle using their Arctic engineering expertise.“The Arctic is becoming a more visible and important region because of how it’s changing,” Evans concludes. “Going forward as a country, we must be able to operate there.” More